raghu wrote: > Why do you say the meaning of growth is unexamined? It seems to me that it > has been beaten to death.<
the problem is the knee-jerk tendency (seen among orthodox economists, but not them alone) to equate "economic growth" with real GDP growth, just as many equate "the economy" with "markets." instead of using exchange-value to measure growth (i.e., real GDP), why not use some aggregate of use-values? something like the Nepalese Gross Domestic Happiness? -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
